Daily #F1 News and Comment: Sunday 3rd August 2014


This page will be updated throughout the day.

Please if you are on Twitter press the tweet button below. If you re-write and tweet individual story headlines don’t forget to include #F1.

You may not realise how hugely important this is and has helped grow our community significantly

Previously on TJ13:

The Top-20 #F1 Constructors who Failed to win a Championship – 12th Toyota

#F1 Feature: Brawn: F1’s Authoritative Giant

OTD lite: 2008 – Ferrari engine failure gifts Hamilton title

Australia confirms new Grand Prix contract for 2016-2020

Lewis Hamilton is a fighter not an eater

OTD lite: 2008 – Ferrari engine failure gifts Hamilton title

Felipe Massa has never enjoyed much luck at the Hungaroring. His best finish over the years has been 4th and in 2009 the circuit almost claimed his life in an almost comedic fashion.

Rubens Barrichello’s Brawn had shed a spring and Massa happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, hitting it as he accelerated up to turn four. TV replays showed a Ferrari that didn’t seemingly have any input from the driver as it crashed into the barriers.It was only later that evidence was found for his head injuries as he was transported to hospital.


On this day, at the same event the previous year, Massa felt a different kind of despair after a quite brilliant display. Having qualified third behind title rival Lewis Hamilton, he took advantage of the clean side of the grid to vault past Hamilton’s team-mate Kovalainen and swept around the outside of Lewis into turn one. The race became a struggle between them both until Hamilton suffered a puncture leaving Massa clear of the field by twenty seconds.

Three laps from the end, Massa’s engine expired in candy floss clouds of smoke and severely dented his title aspirations. In Singapore, a glitch with the re-fuelling lights ripped the refuelling hose as he accelerated away. He would lose the title by one point and when people suggest Singapore and bad luck, Hamilton fans will suggest that he was punished in Belgium so it evens out. Which is ridiculous as Massa lost twenty against the four Lewis lost between 1st and third place finishes.

What should also be offered in calculations is that Massa’s placings in these lost Grand Prix wins would have been ahead of Lewis which would have meant the 2008 champion would have lost further points.

Carlo Carluccio


Australia confirms new Grand Prix contract for 2016-2020

The 2013 Aussie Grand Prix will always be remembered for the fact that the criminals that run the FIA disqualified the criminals known as Red Bull who ignored the technical directives about their faltering car drinking too much of the go faster juice.

images Caught in the crossfire was perma tanned local boy, Daniel Riccardo – henceforth known as “The Colgate Kid’ or CK for short. I suggest perma tanned because 1) he’s an Aussie and 2) the brightness of enamel makes it impossible to tell properly.

In a world run by the mastermind known as Toad, it was always inevitable that Australia would sign up for further episodes of the circus – especially now that CK has established himself as a true contender having taken on and beaten equally young Sebastian Vettel.

This morning, the organisers of the Australian Grand Prix announced a new contract with FOM to host the Australian Grand Prix between 2016 and 2020.

Melbourne’s mayor Denis Napthine made the announcement: “With this agreement we hope to see Daniel Ricciardo triumph in the Australian GP and maybe even become world champion in Formula 1. Congratulations to Ron Walker, chairman of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, for the success of this negotiation that allowed Victoria to snatch the best conditions.”

With CK having won two great races against the flood of Mercedes domination, Australia will be hoping that Master Newey’s last car for the Austrian Milton Keynes concern will give CK the chance of victory next year.


Lewis Hamilton is a fighter not an eater

Hamilton is headline news and there are times when the morally vacuous press get to him “Some of them are just bloody ill-mannered…why the hell don’t they come and badger me after I’ve won a f****** good race? Why don’t they badger me when I’ve done something good? They don’t want to know you when you are doing well or doing anything right. It is when you are in the s*** that they want to know. And that is what really upsets me about the British press.”

v2-mario-balotelli-why-always-meWhich makes his candid openness with them alarming. Whilst the media savvy Alonso and Rosberg, for example, will deflect questions, Lewis almost stumbles into gifting them an answer which will be mis-quoted to sell copy.

Maybe Lewis could get a H.A.M. Shirt printed with, “Why always me” across the chest.

That Hamilton is a fighter is beyond doubt. Many of his victories have come against the odds in cars that really shouldn’t have been in the fight in the first place and as many times as there have been questionable performances, the yin to this yang is there have been times when he has been sublime.

Heading into the summer break, he took the opportunity to give an interview on his terms – revealing that the last couple of races have been damage limitation due to difficult circumstances throughout the weekend and, “Sometimes it’s nice to have things easy, but I love a challenge and a fight.It’s not the times of ease who show who you are -it’s the times of adversity. I definitely feel like the tough times I’ve had this year have made me stronger.”

As to his plans over the two week enforced leave that ‘most’ teams adhere to Lewis will be making the most of the break to relax physically and mentally after a demanding year. But his biggest motivation is to eat, although there’s no confirmation if it was roast dinners and Yorkshire pudding with family, big-ass burgers with Nicole and chums – or Ice Cream with the molten man Kimi.

In happier times...

In happier times…

“I feel like a stick at the moment and it’ll be nice to bulk up a bit. Since the removal of the FRIC system the car is a little lighter so I can put on a bit of weight and next year the weight limit will be going up by ten kilos too, so I’m thinking I can afford to put on a few pounds.”

Beyond those wishes of food, Lewis claims to be happy with performance of the car – which would be a trifle disingenuous when the accepted advantage the silver arrows carry is around two seconds a lap.

“We just need to work on reliability and I know that’s a priority for everyone back at the factories. Over the last two weekends the guys have been amazing – it’s tough for everyone when reliability comes into play – after the long hours and hard work they put in, it hurts them as much as it hurts me. To then fight through, get the car back together, get me out there and not give up or lose hope – I can’t thank them enough for everything they do.”

The final statement is intriguing in itself because a team insider revealed to TJ13 that following a factory tour by the drivers – after the recent British Grand Prix – Rosberg mingled and chatted with everyone, posing for photos and signing autographs. Hamilton, the previous day’s winner, was sullen and unapproachable.

It goes beyond Rosberg having been with the team for longer. Hamilton has been part of the Mercedes family since he was signed into a Mclaren contract as their engines powered the team. On previous visits in the early part of his career he was spoken of as “one of the nicest guys you could meet.” and yet something has changed..

Maybe it is simply the fact that he hasn’t been able to eat; have you seen how miserable people are when on diets?


121 responses to “Daily #F1 News and Comment: Sunday 3rd August 2014

  1. “Three laps from the end, Massa’s engine expired in candy floss clouds of smoke and severely dented his title aspirations. In Singapore, a glitch with the re-fuelling lights ripped the refuelling hose as he accelerated away. He would lose the title by one point and when people suggest Singapore and bad luck, Hamilton fans will suggest that he was punished in Belgium so it evens out. Which is ridiculous as Massa lost twenty against the four Lewis lost between 1st and third place finishes.”

    Once more provoking, Carlo? 🙂

    Massa’s engine expiring and refueling hose incident were squarely team operational errors. I seldom hear people arguing that Button’s 2009 WDC wasn’t deserved because of all the blow-outs that Vettel experienced, or that Raikkonen’s 2007 WDC wasn’t deserved because of Hamilton’s catastrophic race strategy in China courtesy of Big Ron or his electronic gremlins in Brazil. Or that Vettel’s 2012 wasn’t deserved because of all the reliability issues that Hamilton got from his McLaren while leading from pole. Team operational errors are just that: suck them up, and move on.

    As for Spa, it’s not an issue of it evening out. (At least I never suggested that.) It simply is something worse that can happen to driver (worse than a team operational error), when the regulator steps in and controversially robs you of earned points.

    “What should also be offered in calculations is that Massa’s placings in these lost Grand Prix wins would have been ahead of Lewis which would have meant the 2008 champion would have lost further points.”

    If you are getting into such petty points, then you should propose the “correct” calculations for Spa, too. Otherwise your account is from a very specific POV. In Spa Lewis initially won (10) and Felipe was 2nd (8), which means +2 for Lewis. After Spanky, the classification was: Felipe won (10), and Lewis 3rd (6), which means +4 for Felipe. All things considered, Lewis lost 6 points in that incident relative to Felipe.

    • “Which is ridiculous as Massa lost twenty against the four Lewis lost between 1st and third place finishes.”

      Having read the piece again, it strikes me as a very biased way of spinning things (Tifosi tinted spectacles?).

      So by this reasoning it would be ridiculous to consider Raikkonen as a worthy champion, as had Lewis not had his operational team errors in China in Brazil (not sure about other races), then he would easily have had an additional ~20 points in the bag relative to Raikkonen? And thus won by ~19 points.

      Nah, those ifs and buts don’t work this way, as harsh as they may feel to the aggrieve party. Just ask Fred..

      • I couldn’t stand Massa, he should never have been a Ferrari driver. It was almost the remnants of the Schumcher/Todt legacy. I wasn’t happy when Kimi was signed either time. But I thought it would be a bit of fun to re-write history a little.
        Hamilton won Monaco that year after hitting the barrier and puncturing his tyre. It could have been retirement.
        Massa spun in Malaysia he spun countless times in a wet British GP.
        It was a great championship, and I thought the right guy won.
        I may be a blinkered Tifosi, but I’ll let you into a secret, there are certain drivers I can’t stand the thought of being in a title list with Ferrari by their name.

        • “It was a great championship and I thought that the right guy won”…..

          But yet the title of your piece paints a different picture….

          So did he win based on merit or was it gifted to him by Ferrari, which is it?

          • Personally I didn’t want to see Massa winning. As Spanners said, it would have been damaging for the sport. I also think some of the decisions against him that year were ludicrous – Spa for example.

            There are times you take my words too literally, I have always been opinionated about F1 and I won’t stop. Just enjoy the debate don’t let anger blinker you.

          • I’m not angry and I’d wish people stop saying that, not because I’m not putting “lol’s” smile faces etc, does not mean I’m angry. I’m just trying to understand your point of view. Is it to bring about debate or is it meant to demean his achievement by using such a title?

          • I can’t help but think that Ferrari trying to win with Massa was their attempt to ‘win with their own’, something Ferrari hadn’t managed in ages. Hence the swing in favour from Raikkonen to Massa as 2008 went on.

            Perhaps his Italian roots were overplayed, and that he did Italian F3000 before joining F1 with Sauber, but the way Ferrari took him in, almost points to the sort of budding junior driver program that Ferrari now have.

            Would this have been done to counter the Hamilton/McLaren and Vettel/Red Bull programs? They were also seemingly more comprehensive earlier on, which makes sense if Ferrari started it a bit later on in response, just like happened with simulation.

        • Would Lewis Hamilton be one of those names, I wonder?

          (for the gallery: I’m well versed in Carlo’s schtick on this subject area, having been subjected to it many times in the past, on James Allen’s site)

          I’m a Lewis fan, and I don’t take umbrage at the OTD Lite at all … it perfectly highlights how 2008 should’ve been a nailed-on cert for one of the Ferrari drivers, but that Hamilton stuck around long enough to squeak out the title. With some luck, and with his driving, he beat a faster car.

          It’s still the last DWC without the WCC. Others to do that include Hakkinen (’99), Schumi (’94), Prost (’86) and Piquet (’81 & ’83). Pretty good company (16 titles between those four).

          The other interesting stat is the finishing position of Heikki … he finished down in 7th! Ok, he had more of the reliability gremlins hit him, but the fact is that his highest position thru the championship was 4th (after Malaysia, 2nd race), and that after his big shunt in Spain that year, he only once more featured in the top 5 (5th, after the 12th round in EUR, at the end of a 5-race run of top 5 finishes).

          Heikki was lucky to be running 2nd to Massa when his engine blew in Hungary, to be able to score his solitary win in F1, his driving up to that point meant that he could not capitalize on it in the championship. Whereas Lewis’ driving to that point meant that he was able to capitalize on any misfortune from the Massa/Ferrari package. I’m pretty sure Montezemelo’s TV would’ve survived intact during the Brazilian GP had he known they’d been well-beaten, rather than it being a victory squandered. 🙂

    • I wonder if I’m in a minority when it comes to Spa 2008? I think it’s conclusive that Hamilton gained an advantage from cutting the corner – he then passed at the next corner after barely letting Kimi back past.

      The point is that he would never have been that close after s/f if he had taken the previous corner. It’s like Rosberg in Canada – he set his fastest lap after accelerating while short-cutting and held that advantage for a few laps afterwards.

      But what also impacted Raikkonen was Hamilton parking it on the apex for a good exit – Raikkonen collected his rear tyre and that broke his front wing. Thus, exiting Blanchimont Raikkonen crashed, after having spun a few times, like Lewis, trying to make it back around the lap as the rain came.

      In my mind, Raikkonen was the valid winner that day, although we’ll never know that for sure, as Lewis could have passed him later on in another fantastic duel to the one we actually saw, given the McLaren’s better wet handling in 2008.

      • Yeah I’ve watched that a few times, and I agree. Raikkonen was the rightful winner.

        • Raikkonen is a beast at Spa.. if there’s any race where he can beat Fernando, it is there. If he is happy with the car at last after Hungary, I hope we can see a good performance from Kimi at Spa.

          • And yes. Kimi is better at spa than anywhere else. If seen him do some amazing stuff there. (Overtaking sutil on the run off area of pouhon without any loss car control or speed, wich happend right under our noses but was never show on tv) and even though I’m not a real kimi fan, I’ve always rooted for him in spa. And i will be doing so in a couple of weeks. Hoping he(finally) out class Fernando for once. Wich is possible because spa isn’t really Fernando’s territory.

      • Two slightly provoking articles about Hamilton today…guess makes traffic good for the site with all the Hamfosi in here eh? 😉

      • I really don’t understand these comments. Where is this imaginary Hamilton fanbase? Hippo’s comment has 9 upvotes and a comment lower down, positive to LH has zero.

        And this in the face of the fact that the majority of your “stories” today and everyday are focused in on Hamilton. Shouldn’t there be one or two HAM fans in here since that’s all you ever post about?

        • I agree. Jabba’s underhand tactics vaguely recall the way political debate is steered by the Republicans in the US: proactively and preventively declare all those daring to entertain an opinion different to yours as completely out of line and not worthy of any consideration. I caricature, of course, and enjoy reading Hippo’s writings (ahem, rants?), but I don’t always agree with or accept his arguments.

          • It’s a form of moral exclusion mixed with bandwagonism. Pick a small group and imbue them with qualities, or power, that they don’t actually possess so that your treatment of that group seems justified.

            Another tactic is to willfully misunderstand what has been said and take umbrage with a point that was never made.

  2. Oh me, oh my Carlo. You’re a brave soul, but frankly your observations are correct IMO. I whole heartedly agree, re: HAM being fortunate that he even has one title. Can’t wait for DWil and Sortits to bust through the door and start throwing forum grenades, dressed up of course as the great forum-Jedi, keepers of truth. ROFL. FYI, I’m dedicating the piece I am working on to them in particular. I appreciate the inspiration boys. 😉

    • Do you ever plan on taking your head out the judge’s or Carlo’s arse? Everything they write, you have the same answer, “your absolutely right”….

      what are you that scared to actually disagree with anything they say?

      Grow a pair and stop being a brown nose!

      • I must ask, because we all have relevant opinions – have you ever agreed with anything thats been written about Saint Lewis? A few weeks back, the British press attacked Hamilton over his comments regarding his home town with quotes from local councillors, yet there was an article in the British ‘Guardian’ paper from when he won the WDC which they called Stevenage grey and made the locals out to be uninterested in their local superstar. Yet not one word from you in regards TJ13 defending him.

        Is the truth that rather than balanced views you can only write when you feel you have to defend him?

        • Actually I did defend him when the councillor came out with that comment and agreed with what TJ13 wrote. I even named another sportsman who’s also from Stevenage, who has never been mentioned or talked about his time living there, Ashley Young.

          When has anything been written on TJ13 been positive about “Saint Lewis”? You just wrote a piece, which I’m assuming was suppose to be positive, but yet the title of the piece, poured cold water over his WDC title and demean it, by implying it was “gifted” to him, rather than he earned it fairly.

          I’m sorry if you think I can only see things from a ‘Hamfosi’ point of view. But when every piece that’s written, is of a negative tone, then why should I agree? Maybe if the tone of the articles about him, had some remnants of not being so critical and judgemental, then I’d offer differing opinions than what I do now.

        • I agree with Carlo. Why should others change their point of view. You never seem to do it yourself. Kinda the pot tells the kettle. If you don’t get it, by now, that here there will be rants about your idol, or anybody else, then you still don’t get this site. This is one where the writers have opinions and aren’t afraid to share them. Just as you, me and everybody else can share his comment about it. And just as anybody out there can write an article and submit it to the judge. Instead of attacking everyone in the comment who don’t share your believe, write an article. It’s that simple. Than your opinion will be the main thing on that part of the website. Or are you afraid of the comments that might come on your own view on your hero?

  3. “If’s and but’s Carlo, if’s and but’s”….. The results are what they are. We can critic every WDC’s winning season and come up with reasons why the 2nd place driver didn’t win…. Schumi breaking his leg, ‘gifting’ Mikka one of his titles, ‘if’ Mclaren had boxed Lewis in 07 when it was clear that his tyres were worn down to the base structure, then Kimi wouldn’t have won his title, ‘if’ Kimi hadn’t run wide in 05 on that patch of oil on the track or having his front suspension exploding 2-3 laps away from the finish whilst leading in the race, he could’ve won the WDC that year etc etc etc….

    Stop trying to demean his title, he’s still the 30th member in the drivers H. O. F, no amount of “if’s and but’s” can change what has already been written in the history books, unless you want to borrow the Judge’s tardis and go back in time and alter the results. Whilst you’re there, could you go back to 07 and do the same as well please, but saying that, you might give it to Fred, also do the same for those drivers who were ‘gifted’ their title, due to the misfortune of others.

    • Why do you bother Fortis? It was a well-written article to provoke and generate traffic without substantial meaning for discussion. A better article would have been about ‘worthy champions’ and then use as examples ’07, ’08, ’09, Vettel’s titles etc.

  4. Once again I’ve tried to get some reasonable response to my idea about putting ballast in/on/under/inside the drivers’ seats, to bring everyone up to the weight of the heaviest driver on the grid.

    Still no luck, even after tweeting Gary Paffet after he was on the SkyF1 Midweek show; in which he cited Driver Weight as his premier concern.

    Always thought polls/petitions on the F1.com website would be a fantastic resource to hear back from the masses. 10k on a petition to mandate a response, 100k to mandate it as an agenda item on the relevant committee.

    That’s the way to harness the fans and find out what they want, not pundits and the press sticking words in peoples mouths.

  5. Hamilton could easily have been a triple word champion by now. So picking at the stitching of his one title feels like motivated reasoning. Massa as a world champion would have damaged the sport in much the same way as the Button ‘championship’ has.

    • “Hamilton could easily have been a triple word champion by now.”

      True. But the point I think Carlo is making is that HAM could easily, very easily, be a zero WDC too, albeit with a nice handful of wins.

      Ultimately he is a one-time champ and has exactly what he deserves. No more, no less. He’s on his fifth WDC opportunity now (07/08/10/12/14), trying to secure his 2nd WDC and currently trailing his team mate in pts and qualifying.

      For those who harbour fantasy about Senna/Hamilton comparisons, really it’s not very Senna-esque at all, is it?

      • Really. That’s not a smart argument. Anyone can see that he’s had more problems then Rosberg. And he’s only 11 points behind. What’s the point in comparing qualifying when he’s had machanical failures in 2 sessions. Did you think that the people reading your post will have not watched F1 this season?
        It comes off nasty.

        Tell me this. If Rosberg has 3 mechanical failures in a row will you declare that Hamilton is suddenly dominant and amazing. . Of course not.

        • Wrong question…

          You should’ve asked…..what was his opinion when Lewis won 4 from 5 and did the same for qualifying?….Did he cheer on Rosberg the same way he is doing now?

          You’re wasting your time

        • You focus on the minor quali comment, when the crux of what I said (ignored of course) was about HAM going for his 2nd WDC at his 5th legit WDC winning car/opportunity. The post was in response to you saying, ‘but he could be a triple WDC’ to Carlo mentioning he was lucky in 2008, which he was. That’s the main point. And yes, he’s only 11 behind in the pts table, but it takes only 1 to lose the title. We are over half way now. Like I said, all things considered, not very Senna-esque.

          • I focused on the most obviously wrong thing about your post. I didn’t want to spend ages picking through line by line and telling you every part that was wrong. Thing is that your post is obviously hate driven and bias. I’m not sure who you think you’re fooling. It’s easy and cheap to through out incorrect things. It’s a lot more work to pick them apart. I’m guessing your style of argument works well in the pub. It’s called a “gish gallop”.

          • Erm, do you deny HAM is chasing title no.2 from his his 5th opportunity?

            Or do you deny he is behind on pts (to a team mate he was supposed to dust) and can lose (again) by a single point?

            Or both? I don’t get it?

            Or do you deny the quali record, even factoring out mech failure?

            Like I said, not very Senna-esque.

            I’m not sure what is hateful about these facts?

          • Lol@ you for claiming a win there. Everyone can read your points. I don’t need to spell out why you’re wrong. This isn’t Yahoo Answers

          • Yep, I agree. They can read the history. Pretty clear who bailed. Thank you and come again…


          • Hmm, 2012 could only be counted as an “opportunity” if you make the car 100% reliable (or even 90%). The car failed when it failed (usually with HAM in the lead), and that’s it. 2007 was an opportunity, no doubt, but let’s remember a few things: he was a rookie, there was an equally fast (if not faster) rival car, and his teammate was none other than the reigning 2x DWC!!! I dare say we could have another 65 seasons of F1, and you will NEVER see a rookie run his multiple world champion teammate so close for the championship.

            For 2008 he had a good car, though not the fastest car. He won.

            In 2010 he had a definite shot, but that was more to do with RBR almost conspiring to throw the DWC title away, b/c of reliability and intra-team tension. One could say if he’d had Jenson’s reliability that year, he would’ve won (one mechanical failure for Jenson, that being the result of a left-on air intake cover – unforgiveable) … he was on for 18 pts in Spain (wheel-rim failure), and 12 pts in Hungary (gearbox). Even just taking the points on offer in Italy (12) and Singapore (12) would’ve netted him the title, but even so, that would’ve been another stolen title (from RBR this time).

            In 2014, he has the fastest car, but he’s had more reliability issues. An extra non-finish, plus two compromised qualifying sessions leading to woeful starting positions. Of course in the last race he just beat his pole-sitting teammate, having started from the pitlane! Repeat after me: P1 to P4; PL to P3. Really it should’ve been a historic win for Lewis from pit lane, but Merc pitwall apparently can’t change strategies when circumstances change.

            Add that to the Bahrain wheel-to-wheel session, where he beat back Rosberg, even when on the slower tires. Would’ve been nice to see what would’ve happened in the inverse scenario, if there had been a Safety Car (as 100% there should’ve been) in Germany. It seems the powers-that-be decided the likely result might not be very home-friendly.

            Rosberg is having a very good season, perhaps his best ever in F1 (I mean in driving terms, not just points), but still he’s come up short when the situation is anything other than straight-forward. He’ll need Wolff more than ever for the run-in.

          • Quite hilarious that your definition of who’s lost is whomever’s bailed first!! Lol, in that case you’re undefeated!! 😀

            The reality is quite different.

          • Nah, sorry to upset you but that’s not my def.

            It’s when someone bails from the debate, stops asking / answering questions and goes all ad hom. Reading above it’s clear who jumped off the ship.

            Cheers though. Peace and love, SiS.

          • This is why I think Hamilton/Mansell comparisons are valid.. hence their many wins but lack of titles relatively. Hamilton is in the 92 Williams now, but the plan is not the same as Rosberg is not a contracted number 2 driver.

            From 86, 87, Mansell missed both, eventually taking 92 and leaving for 93. But for Hamilton, 07, 08 could have been the same, with the subsequent period like Mansell’s one at Williams (88 – 09) and Ferrari (with Prost being Button, and any title shot disappearing).

          • Yes I think a pretty good summary there F1esty.

            I’d say there is an uncanny likeness between the two, mind set wise, career wise, pros and cons.

            Yeah I’d go with that.

          • And for once I agree with the big boned water dwelling one 🙂
            Most of the drivers experience some misfortune during a season, comparing one piece of bad luck with another doesn’t really prove much. Driving errors and team f ups are another matter, but luck is always going to be a factor in anything with as many variables. I can’t think of many WDC’s that had worse luck than their peers and still managed to win… anyone else?

          • Of course that’s true … points at the end are all that matters. Although I think we can debate whether the points table actually serves its intended function, of finding the “best” driver in any particular season. Before 1991, the DWC was never an “all results count” championship. It was always a Best X of Y Results affair. It was only after Prost was beaten by Senna in 1988, even though Prost had scored more overall points, that the DWC was changed. I like the old way better … there are some things over which a driver has zero control. At present, we just hope that these mechanical failures will even themselves out over a season, but that’s usually a forlorn hope.

            The historical numerator X was the the whole number over two-thirds that of Y. For 19 races, that’d be 13. For the first 11 races of 2014, it would be Best 8 results. Going by that, it’d be HAM 176, ROS 172.

          • So there you have it, if we constructed a pts table that benefited Hamilton, then he’d be leading! See! It’s clear! We should petition the FIA immediately.

            Just… wow.

          • What’s so wow about it? Just your usual knee-jerk reaction, looks like. Perhaps you missed the “… we can debate …” bit?

            I was just highlighting that that’s how it used to be in the F1 drivers’ table. Obviously there was a reason for it, that being that the powers-that-be then realized there very oftentimes are circumstances out of a drivers’ control. If “all results count” was always in place, Senna would “only” be a 2-time champ, with Prost on 5.

            It’s “all results count” for this year, plus double points for ABU … not a fan of either, but it is what it is.

      • Could it also be said that Senna could have had more title chances? Given a little less unreliability, I would think he could have contended in the Lotus as well, 85-87. Lets not mention 94-97..

        • 85 definitely he was staggering that year but the Louts let him down so often in races. *6 he was meteoric in qualifying but again the car wasn’t the most reliable. 87 not a hope that Lotus was the equivalnet of a truck

        • Well of course there was that famous pic of Senna, Prost, Mansell and Piquet at Estoril in 1986, so obviously whomever set that photo shoot up (I think Bernie E facilitated), thought that Ayrton was in with a chance.

          The table after Monza that year was MAN 61, PIQ 56, PRO 53, SEN 48. So yeah, with 3 races to run, Senna was still in with a chance, but it was a decidedly outside chance. Akin to Hamilton’s chances going into Abu Dhabi in 2010. Worse than that, actually. More like Button’s chances in 2010 after Singapore.

          Though in all cases more than enough for SISurp to include them. 😉

        • Yeah like Carlo said, 85/86 good reliability would have made things interesting. Post 94 Imola, there was at least 2-3 more titles given what we know of the Williams now.

    • interestingly, Vettel/Red Bull was actually the faster package over the whole season, by one tenth from Button/Brawn. But mistakes, like colliding with Kubica in Australia, along with unreliability stopped the title fight from going to the last race.

      We can safely say that the Vettel of 2011-13 would probably have wrapped that title up through consistency/greater speed. But given their end of season form, we could also say the same about Hamilton or Raikkonen if McLaren/Ferrari weren’t suffering a hangover from the 2008 title fight.

      • A more mature Seb would have won the 2009 title easily imo, or even Webber had he not had his broken his leg at the end of 08 as it clearly effected his braking. You mention Australia but he also lost podiums through silly mistakes at Monaco and Singapore. He also should got a podium/fought for the win at Germany but he was a nervous wreck that weekend whilst Webber walked to a win despite the drive through. There’s a fantastic James Allen piece that talks about Seb’s behaviour that weekend; they had the fastest car and the pressure of producing a win in front of a home crowd really got to it.

  6. Well, well, well, Ferrari have at last confirmed that Marmorini is out. Time to look for new engine designer!

  7. Hopefully we’ll see less errors from Lewis under pressure now that he is allowed to put on some muscle bulk once more. Cutting so much muscle can really affect peak performance, especially when under pressure and you need your reserves to kick in.

    Even if he gives away 0.05 to Rosberg, he should have 1 tenth in hand over him and thus still be in front, which will be critical in the next few races/if strategy ends up as ‘car in front first’ in all circumstances..

    • What’s particularly interesting about the last race is the alternate strategy was a different number of stops, 3 vs. 2. With Mercedes unwilling/unable to switch Lewis to a 3 stop later in the race (for which an argument can be made they needed to have thought about) and Nico leading at the first stops, there was no room in their team strategy to accommodate Lewis getting in front of Nico.

      Normally alternate strategy for Merc OPO vs OOP so overtaking after the first stop would let a driver take over optimum strategy. I would imagine that would continue to be the case as long as the number of stops is the same for both strategies.

      • “What’s particularly interesting about the last race is the alternate strategy was a different number of stops, 3 vs. 2.”

        I guess after Hungary they will impose nr_primary == nr_ alternate in their calculators and religiously follow that. 🙂

      • There should’ve been no thinking necessary for them to switch Lewis to the 3-stop after lap 38, when they saw Alonso take on options. Lewis had gone around for another lap, setting very good times on 30-lap old options (his best lap was on lap 36). In the time since the strategies for the two drivers were decided, Lewis had jumped ahead of Nico on track (by passing Vergne and Rosberg being stuck behind Bottas), and Alonso had come in for options. Right then, that should’ve been the trigger to go to a 3-stop, even moreso b/c all of his options were brand spanking new! Merc pitwall missed a historic opportunity to have one of their drivers win from pit lane.

        • @KRB there was no thinking because Merc were devoted to split strategy from the off having decided it was in the best interest of the team.

          Of course, it was a missed opportunity for them and again hard to fathom they wouldn’t want to use those options sitting in the garage, but there you go. IMO this highlights a major weakness in their team, in that they are very poor at dealing with unanticipated developments. Exacerbated, no doubt, by not having Brawn on the pitwall.

          As an addendum, I would say that they seem to be struggling with correlating their tyre data post FRIC. Rosberg’s soft in Silverstone had 50% life left, the pace of the prime in Silverstone was a surprise, how long the options went on Hungary etc.,

          • Excellent points. No conspiracy, but good old-fashion thinly-veiled incompetence, along with some mis-behaving data-points..

          • All great points. Always have a lot of time for your posts. Hadn’t thought about the FRIC and their wrong-headed call with the primes in Hungary. Of course the ban was post-Silverstone, so their cock-up then was all them. I think Rosberg was pushed into an early stop at Silverstone b/c of the time he was losing to Lewis at that point in the race. A sorta “it must be the tires b/c my pace can’t be that much off his” line of thinking.

            Agreed about Brawn. Lowe should be that figure on the pit wall, though it seems he always has to look over to Wolff to see what the play will be. They can get away with it this year, at least in the WCC, but if it was a tight multi-team race, it’d prove a definite handicap.

          • Indeed, that’s a good point – I think losing FRIC has hit them hard, their advantage looks less than 2 seconds in hand now. We could calculate it from Rosberg’s early pace pre-SC.

            But it is also making them look ‘old and stuffy’, i.e. not very adaptable, when us fans can immediately suss what each driver needs to do, yet they are hamstrung by the ‘one team strategist’ trying to a) stick to an irrelevant ‘agreed protocol’ or b) juggle what is best for each driver vs. team… They badly need Brawn to sort this mess out!

          • ….maybe they’re throwing away a few constructors’ points here and there to reduce the FIA entrance fee for 2015 😉

  8. ^

    I’m afraid the following is going to put a few noses out of joint and also enrage the Hamilton Hammerheads but it needs to be said.

    So, brace yourselves!

    Firstly, it is a totally invalid exercise to retrospect using “if”s.

    This was drummed into me decades ago, in my youth, by the late Denis Jenkinson. And he was absolutely right.

    Even Murray Walker realised it and used to say in his own bizarre way, “If is F1 spelt backwards.”

    Yet, whole articles are devoted foolishly to “if” scenarios on this site.

    The simple fact is that whatever has happened, happened. You cannot speculate, nor predict, nor project what would have happened if one event or another, viewed in isolation, had not occurred. Because, if you change one element in the equation you enter into a random free-for-all of other things that might then have taken place.

    Consider, to take a recent controversial row, the protestations over how Lewis “would have seized pole” at Monaco this year if Nico hadn’t taken to the escape road at Mirabeau. Well, if Nico hadn’t, none of us know what would actually then have happened. For all we know, the fly that strayed into Hamilton’s eye on race day could have done so on Qualifying day as he went for that pole. He could, for example, then have crashed in the tunnel and broken both his legs (or worse).

    The moment you start hypothesising by altering past parameters you enter into the world of the completely unknown and unpredictable. What would have happened if Michael Schumacher had had a fourth Shredded Wheat with his breakfast, that morning last December, and set off skiing five minutes later than he did?

    I make this point because you have raised the thorny issue of Felipe Massa losing the 2008 Drivers World Championship to Lewis Hamilton.

    You can’t, with any validity, claim that Massa was robbed of it on the grounds “if (whatever) hadn’t happened…etc.” Who knows what else might then have happened, or not happened?

    But what one can say, with absolute validity and using no “if”s and hypothetical scenarios at all, is that once it became certain in 2009 that members of the Renault team had rigged the Singapore GP of 2008 so comprehensively that the result of it was rendered totally false, misrepresentative, corrupt and meaningless, all championship points in that race should simply have been – and still should be, even now – cancelled retrospectively by the FIA.

    The effect of that, when you do the maths, is that the true (and worthy) world champion of 2008 is Felipe Massa – and that (take cover, folks!) Lewis Hamilton has never won the world championship at all.

    Sadly, however, this retrospective correction will never be allowed to happen, despite the fact that it’s the right thing to do, because it would cost Bernard Ecclestone money.

    Some might argue that if it would make Bernard Ecclestone money it would have happened already – but there you go too far and wander back into the world of “if”s…

    All I can say is that when I look at Felipe Massa I see the true Drivers World Champion of 2008 and when I look at Lewis Hamilton I see a man who has yet to win one.

    And there are many, not all of them in Maranello, or even Italy or Brazil, who share that view. Based on facts and on what actually did happen.

    I’ll get my coat…


    • I am shivering from the most epic joygasm I have ever had.

      I, I… I think I want to be you. Can I please wear your skin?

    • I’ll admit that I am surprised no action was taken over the result of the crash-gate race – surely you could now do the same again, and use someone low down as the scapegoat?

      Rosberg was also looking strong for a win that day, but for a penalty for driving over the pit lane exit line.. this all in a Williams. Vettel also was miles ahead of the other 3 RB drivers, while Ferrari must have had the fastest car by a good margin.

      At Monaco, Pole was by no means nailed on.. it would have been close between both when you analyse the sector times. Hamilton might have been able to sneak it by 1 tenth or so with a great lap – but we’ll never know that now. He seemed to think he would have gotten pole, from being stronger in S2/S3, as he was behind Rosberg after Casino.

      I think yellows are sometimes overdone for minor situations like that – if Nico aborted and stayed put in the escape road, then why couldn’t Hamilton have continued as normal? Sure, if he also went down the escape road we’d possibly have some light contact, but if anything, only Rosberg would have been likely to get a gearbox change from that collision.

      Stewards would also not be necessary for Rosberg parking it in a side road, although that said, I’m surprised he was allowed to reverse the car back onto a live race track, considering there was no more time to do a Q run and no point in finishing the lap.

      • f1esty, that was just an early clue towards the Merc pitwall inaction.

        Standing around scratching their arses instead of getting on the horn and telling him to stay put.

        • I can imagine Brawn would come down on him straight away, like the dad of a petulant child that has just been thoroughly embarrassed in front of his bosses!

    • If you see Massa as the 2008 WDC then you clearly have the same thing in your eye as Hamilton had in Monaco

      • Waiting for a Victims of Circumstances 2008 vintage for a more elaborate piece on that. 🙂 If you ever get to doing that, I do not envy your headache whenever you reach Singapore..

        • I’m sure it will eventually come.

          As per the rules of the post – the safety car is something that is ‘accepted’ as part of racing…although in that case it was, well, “different”

      • ^
        If so, that would be the gleam in Hmilton’s eye from the zeal to correct a perceived injustice.

        And no, I don’t “see Massa as the 2008 WDC (sic)”. I see him, as stated, as the rightful Drivers World Champion of 2008. That abbreviates to DWC.

        There’s no such thing as a “World Drivers Championship “or a “WDC”.

        Largely because there’s no such thing as a “”world driver”.

        They are drivers competing for a World Championship, not “World Drivers” competing for a championship.

        It’s simple literacy and logic.

        For drivers, it’s the Drivers World Championship.

        For constructors, it’s the Constructors World Championship.

        (As your Marlboro Grand Prix Guide will confirm, if you don’t want to believe me.)

    • Hahaha! So no “ifs” apart from your big “if” then eh? Genius. So can I ask how many other penalties affecting race results were missed, or penalties given that shouldn’t have been? Oh, story I forgot, no “ifs”!

    • Run-of-the-mill F1 sophistry.

      If Alonso was in the title hunt, and had benefitted (even if he *knew nothing about it*), then I would agree with you. Actually, then I would just think that Alonso would be excluded from the race results.

      As the SC shakeup was the same for everyone, it would be ridiculous to render the entire race null and void. The other teams managed not to have their fuel hose make a break for freedom, during the pit stops.

      Has any F1 race been declared null and void? It certainly would be some precedent. I’m not sure the effect it would have on F1 viewing figures, F1’s general credibility, or how the Singapore GP authorities would’ve reacted.

      Massa raised this Singapore-shouldn’t-count argument many moons ago. I think he was laughed out of the room then, and would again be today.

      • Just because a human being is “laughed out of a room” doesn’t make their point wrong. As you grow up, you’ll see that populist sentiment can be misleading. Good luck to you anyway. Keep moving with the masses.

        Baaaaa, baaaaa.

        • As one grows up, usually their ability to argue reasoned points increases. Of course, there are always exceptions, and some 50-something’s still argue like know-it-all teenagers. Such is life. 😀

          • Mhmm, yep sure mate… Keep on walking the path of the populist.

            Your hand was shown the moment you said, “Felipe was laughed out of a room” (which I highly suspect is BS) for his veiw.

            Time to grow up son.

          • SiS, a question: regarding your first reply, do you talk from first-hand experience?

            Haha, quite lovely straw-men you’ve constructed for yourself there!

            Last thing … you seem like a total last-worder (i.e. last word “wins” in your world). Can you control that trigger finger, or will your OCD overwhelm you once again? Fun times ahead …

  9. How do people have such blinkers on them? Saying it is Hamilton’s 5th realistic chance of a title is ridiculous.

    2007, 2008, 2010 were all within reach, but 2012 he had not chance. With that McLaren there was no chance of winning as the reliability issues and team errors cost him. Not to mention Maldonado taking him out in Valencia and Hulkenberg taking him out in Brazil.

    • Adam,
      Have you ever considered coming up with a series of Victims of Circumstances for past championships? Namely nail-biting squeakers like Raikkonen’s 2007, Hamilton’s 2008, Hunt’s 1976, Lauda’s 1984, Vettel’s 2010 and 2012.. That would be a fine, entertaining read!

      • There are already some online landroni! Very good reads.. trying to find them again. I thought those are where Adam got his inspiration from to do ‘Victims of Circumstance’ 🙂 I think they mostly cover the close 2000s championships.

      • There were plans to have 2012 ready for this summer break, however, with preparations for the new site underway these have taken a backseat for the moment. The close 2012 season was actually the inspiration for the post in the first place!

          • An interesting piece, but a touch too speculative for my liking. How Hamilton was given second place in China is beyond me…? I like to think Victims is done in a slightly more scientific way of thinking rather than “he would probably have….” – but nevertheless, thanks for posting it

          • No worries.. I can agree on China, that was a McLaren mix-up and it left Lewis exposed. It’ll be interesting to see how a slightly different approach changes things!

  10. I think we’ve all established by now that when lewis is mentioned on this website, there’s one person so obsessed that it seems they get a stiffy and the urge to make a comment criticising him. Cough *still I surprise* cough.. it seems that S.I.S has also got their name from a phrase on lewis’ helmet! LOL. Petty to say the least. Such is the level of influence lewis has on S.I.S.

    Go ahead, write an article on lewis and his 2011 season. We’re waiting in anticipation, not to take it seriously but just to have a good laugh. We may have taken it seriously if you didn’t continually make comments lambasting lewis at every opportunity. Still if it gets rid of your stiffy – heck even climax for all I care! – then go ahead, we’ll be waiting in anticipation. Lewis has even got the haters writing articles on him! – looks like his management aren’t doing such a bad job after all 😉

  11. Out of idle curiosity, in what way was Felipe Massa nearly being killed “almost comedic”? Was it the “life-threatening” injury he sustained? Was it the way his car ploughed into the tyre wall with him unconscious inside it? Was it the way he had to have a titanium plate fitted into his skull? Was it the way that his career was put in jeopardy?

    I get we all have different senses of humour, but that seems a strange way to describe something like that…

    • It wasn’t so much the injury which he suffered but rather the nature of accident. In memory I had never heard of a spring coming off a car, a wheel maybe, piece of bodywork but not so something inconsequential and if it hadn’t been for the grave injury it would have been a ridiculous incident, that’s what I was referring to.

      • Bad result for Helio and RHR. A last-to-first for Dixon. Will the Penske teammates’ (Power and Castroneves) squabbling allow RHR to snatch the title? I’m hoping Power can finally snag that title that he deserves.

    • …once upon a time Formula was really good… as was the British Empire… as was the ongoing ‘discovery’ of Africa…

      Those Halcyon days… I think using the Tardis last week has accelerated the passing of time…

      TJ13 – Time Lord!

  12. I never really associated Massa as a ‘real’ Ferrari driver. I think it was the way that he was almost helped into the seat.

    Felt that he got a bit too much on a plate from the team, and Michael along the way.

    But my admiration grew after his WDC that lasted seconds, how he dealt with all the negativity from his home country (couple of F1 past ‘greats’ did him no favours – the gits) and his determined recovery from his accident.

    I really like, and respect, him now.

    Criminally underrated, I reckon. Bottas is a sensation in the making.

  13. Judge, how many Merc insiders do you have contact with? What level (around) is this insider that mentioned that Lewis was sullen after the British GP? I’m surprised he was sullen then … perhaps after Germany or Hungary, or definitely Monaco.

    What else could be going on? I tend to discount any of the sensational “reaches” that the F1 press usually make. But it does seem as though there are a few undercurrents in that story, that will hopefully emerge over the next few weeks.

    • Twitter last night saying he’s on the outs w/ Nicole again. Maybe they just had a fight. Everyone make such a big deal about his mental state, but TBH when he starts the weekend out like that is when you have to worry. So far he’s shown up loaded for bear every weekend. What happens in between seems just to be part of who he is.

      • Just read a story in the Daily Mail where Lewis and Nicole were at the White House, for a Special Olympics event (Scherz is a Special Olympics ambassador). Nice for Lewis that it came on a non-race-weekend. Don’t get to meet the POTUS everyday.

        Something else going on then.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.